From the current First Things:
Mormon beliefs diverge widely from historic Christian orthodoxy. The Book of Mormon, which is Mormonism’s principal source for its claim to new revelation and a new prophet, lacks credibility. And the Jesus proclaimed by Joseph Smith and his followers is different in significant ways from the Jesus of the New Testament: Smith’s Jesus is a God distinct from God the Father; he was once merely a man and not God; he is of the same species as human beings; and his being and acts are limited by coeternal matter and laws.
The intent of this essay is not to say that individual Mormons will be barred from sitting with Abraham and the saints at the marriage supper of the Lamb. We are saved by a merciful Trinity, not by our theology. But the distinguished scholar of Mormonism Jan Shipps was only partly right when she wrote that Mormonism is a departure from the existing Christian tradition as much as early Christianity was a departure from Judaism. For if Christianity is a shoot grafted onto the olive tree of Judaism, Mormonism as it stands cannot be successfully grafted onto either.
For if Christianity is a shoot grafted onto the olive tree of Judaism, Mormonism as it stands cannot be successfully grafted onto either.
Note: This post contains religious arguments that I don’t typically make in Christian blogs. I am not trying to argue against your religion, just to show that Christianity is very far from Judaism, arguably further away than Mormonism is from Orthodox Christianity.
Judaism is a religion of the Law, so much so that the very term for religion in Hebrew, “dat”, was taken from a word meaning “law”. Nobody observes the law perfectly, but you should do the best you can and God, who made you imperfect, will accept that. It’s the struggle to keep the Law, as best you can, that brings you closer to God.
Christians, if I understand your religion correctly, believe that the Law can only condemn us. That it’s something that keeps us apart from God. This is diametrically opposed.
Jews believe that the world is “broken as designed”. God designed a world that is broken, and we need to work to fix, because of the kind of humanity He wanted to create. Christians (again, if I understand things correctly) believe that the world is fallen. That is was meant to be lot better than it actually is.
These are huge differences, even before you can into the incarnation, or whether a created object such as a communion wafer could at the same time be God. From my perspective as a Jew, they are not smaller than the difference between Christians believing in the trinity and Mormons believing that Jesus is a separate being.
Interesting. Are you saying Jews don’t believe in the Fall? Or that God intended the Fall (something often contended by Calvinists, by the way–I think).
Orthodox Jews(1) believe that the fall happened, but they don’t make a big deal out of it. It happened, so we have to work for a living – that’s all. It is not a crushing original sin that needs to be washed in blood.
That’s part of the reason Judaism isn’t missionary. We don’t believe humanity is fallen and need to be saved, but merely that there are a few rules that everybody needs to obey (and a bunch more for Jews, because God told us so).
(1) I’m not Orthodox. I’m not sure what the truth is, so I discuss religion with people of different opinions to see which makes the most sense. Maybe God will decide to enlighten me one day.
OK. That accounts for much that’s puzzled me. So the blood sacrifices so carefully itemized in the Hebrew Scriptures were… a stage in spiritual development? (I’m not trying to be snide. I understand that the current view in most of Judaism is that the practice of the Law is a substitute for, or just as good as, the temple sacrifices. But I find it an odd way to approach the text of the Torah).
I’d have to use a really good microscope to search for any snideness in your question. It’s perfectly valid.
Orthodox Jewish belief is that the sacrifices have not been superseded. Once the temple was built in Jerusalem, it became forbidden to sacrifice anywhere else. This means that in times where there is no Temple, such as between the Babylonian exile and the building of the second temple, or ever since the Romans destroyed that second temple, we can’t bring sacrifices anywhere. So we don’t. The Amidah, the standing prayer that Orthodox Jewish men recite three times a day (and women once) includes a request for the temple sacrifices to be resumed.
In the meanwhile, since we don’t have sacrifices, we just spend more energy on the rest of the Law. The sacrifices are part of the Law we can’t observe. But there are other parts that people can’t observe. Somebody who is barren can’t observe the commandment to multiply and fill up the earth. Somebody who is born in this generation, when we don’t know who is Amalek, can’t observe the command to wipe them out. It’s not a big deal – God doesn’t ask us to do the impossible, only the best we can with the opportunities He gives us.
BTW, I think it is wrong to view the sacrifices as primarily bloody killings. The people who participated in them weren’t city folk who go to Wal*Mart to buy frozen, processed meat. They were mostly shepherds and farmers, used to doing their own butchery (or at the most bringing the animal to a butcher and staying there until the job was done and they could take the meat home). Sacrifices were probably more like barbecue parties in God’s honor. Most of the meat was eaten in celebration.
And, of course, the sacrifice wouldn’t be Kosher unless the animal was slaughtered in a specific, painless way. Suffering was never part of the sacrifice process.
This is excellent. Very informative. I hadn’t thought of the connection that sacrifices are forbidden all places except the Jerusalem temple, though I should have, since it’s a strong running theme in the historical books.
Of course you understand that, as a Christian, I believe firmly that Christianity is a natural (in the sense of not being monstrous) development from the Law and the Prophets, while Mormonism (in our view) is an idiosyncratic riff on Christian doctrine which misses almost all the main points.
That said, I understand how it would appear far otherwise to a Jew (most especially because of the trinitarian question).
Of course, as a Christian you consider Christianity to be a normal development from the Law. My point was that Mormons consider their own religion to be a normal development from Christianity, and looking from the outside both beliefs seem to make the same amount of sense.
Evaluating alleged revelations(1) is a matter of faith, not amenable to natural reason.
(1) I use this in the legal sense of claimed revelations of God that are in dispute. When Hindus talk with Jews, this is the Old Testament. When Jews talk with Christians, this is the New Testament. When Christians talk with Muslims, this is the Kuran. When anybody else talks with Mormons, this includes the book of Mormon.
Ori, thanks for hanging with us to talk about this. I appreciate your willingness to interact.
I must disagree with you the idea that all literature claiming divine inspiration are equally valid. The Book of Mormon is plagiarized from a version of the Bible and makes historical claims that cannot be verified, perhaps even disputed by reasons research. The Bible, both testaments, have great historical validation as the ancient documents they are and the events they record. Time and again critics have tried to disprove a biblical account, and after further research they are proven wrong.
As you know, the Bible records historical events. Most other religious literature does not, so the Bible asks you to believe it in part because certain people lived and certain things happened just as it records them. The Book of Mormon fails on that count terribly, and other books just don’t go there.
I must disagree with you the idea that all literature claiming divine inspiration are equally valid.
I didn’t mean to make that claim, just the weaker claim that I don’t believe unaided reason can identify which revelations are correct. Thomas Aquinas was a lot smarter than I can ever hope to be, and so was Maimonides. One of them was wrong about Christianity. If one of them couldn’t come to the correct conclusion using reason, then I don’t think my reason is equal to the task either. God willing, He will either point me in the right way, or forgive me for having been wrong.
I haven’t read the New Testament, the Qur’an, or the Book of Mormon (or even all of the Old Testament), so I can’t judge them. But having historical facts does not by itself prove that a text is divinely inspired, even if it claims to be. With all due respect to Lars Walker, I am not going to accept The Year of the Warrior as being the unvarnished truth, even though some facts in it are historical. Books that claim to be scripture can be in the same status.
I don’t think Ori argued that all literature claiming divine inspiration is equally valid. He was merely saying that the claim of divine authority is in itself scientifically unverifiable, and all such claims occupy similar places (appeals to authority) in discussions between members of different faiths.
On the other hand, you make a good point–that there is difference between the historical claims (or lack thereof) of the Hindu Scriptures (for instance) as opposed to those of the Jewish and Christian scriptures. But I don’t think that was what Ori was talking about.
Yeah, I almost didn’t say anything, but with what you said, Ori, and the quote from the article, that Mormonism’s primary source lacks credibility proved too much encouragement for me. I may still want to say that. I agree that reason only cannot evaluate the full meaning of Scripture and other claimed scriptures, but I do think they can be evaluated rationally and strengths brought to some light. That’s why I referred to the history in the Old and New Testaments. I believe Judaism and Christianity are the most internally consistent or reasonable faiths in the world.
The fact that Jesus was a real historical person doesn’t make him the Son of God anymore than the fact that Joseph Smith was a real historical person makes him a prophet.
So don’t pull this “the Bible is more rational” crap on me.
The Iliad and the Odyssey were also about real places and real people. That doesn’t mean Zeus exists does it?
As far as faith claims go, the Book of Mormon and the Bible are both equally credible as far as I’m concerned.
Thank you, Seth, for that reasoned and sensitive contribution to our discussion.
Seth, I wasn’t trying to claim that if the Bible is an accurate, reliable historic document, then Jesus is the Son of God. I was saying that the Bible makes all kinds of claims about real, verifiable things, and by doing so, specific claims can be verified by other documents or research. Similarly, Joseph Smith made claims about visits from angels and receiving divine tablets which cannot be verified at all. There’s also something about Jesus appearing to American Indians which is ridiculous. That argues against the credibility of Smith’s religious claims. In another vein, Buddhists have said that it doesn’t matter whether the Buddha was actually a real person, because the philosophy of enlightenment stands on its own, but even if we agreed that it does stand well enough on its own, it doesn’t stand as well as the claims of Christianity because of all the history cited and used in the Bible. Does that make sense?
I understand where you’re coming from, it’s just I disagree. You say:
“There’s also something about Jesus appearing to American Indians which is ridiculous.”
And there isn’t something ridiculous about loading all the animals onto an ark while the earth gets flooded? Or about someone having to have a “magic death” so all could live?
I’m well aware that the Book of Mormon sounds strange. I just don’t think the “weird” argument is a good idea coming from other religious people.
If it comes to that, Mormon scholars have been doing quite a bit of verification work as well. Not that I expect any of it to convince those looking with a critical eye. But it is there if you want to look.
When some guy pops up claiming to speak for God, he is automatically assumed to be a loony.
Give it a thousand years, and enough followers, however, and now it gets to be called “respectable religion.”
The only difference between Joseph Smith and Paul is that we’re still historically close enough to Joseph to feel uncomfortable about him. Paul’s been dead for almost two millenia – which has given us plenty of time to tidy him up. Mormons don’t have the luxury of most of our figures being safely dead in antiquity.
I need to amend what I said. I don’t believe unaided reason can identify that an alleged revelation is true. It could, however, identify that an alleged revelation is false.
But I have a problem with using the fact that true history is interwoven with something as evidence of revelation. I don’t think Athena really interfered in the siege of Troy.
Ori, I agree with your first statement, and about the second, I’m not saying that the Bible is the Word of God because it says something true about history. I’m just saying it is a reliable historic document which can be verified in part by it’s accurate record of so many historic details. For instance, the Bible makes claims about one of the falls of Jerico which has been attacked by archeologists, but solid research has bore out that the wall of that city did fall flat around the time Israel’s army was recorded to have been in the neighborhood. If the Bible recorded many chapters of history that could be disproven from reliable sources and research, then it would damage the Bible’s spiritual credibility too.
You make a point, Seth. I should temper my criticism.
Ori, I think that is a very reasonable proposition.
Of course it is on the identifying-the-false end of things that many Christians think they’ve discredited Mormonism.
Which I would disagree with, but anyway…
A couple other points…
Phil wrote:
“he was once merely a man and not God”
You need to be clear what you mean by this.
Secondly, for a Mormon saying “merely man” is like C.S. Lewis saying “mere Christianity.” Mormonism posits the divine is within humanity. If we are guilty of anything, it is not that we degrade God, but that we exalt humanity. You cannot slap Protestant or Catholic assumptions about human nature onto the Mormon notion of theosis and godhood. You can’t just act like Mormons are Protestants gone very, very wrong. We come from completely different assumptions about matter, humanity, godhood, and the universe.
Finally, you wrote:
“For if Christianity is a shoot grafted onto the olive tree of Judaism, Mormonism as it stands cannot be successfully grafted onto either.”
This is a neat sounding phrase, but I’m afraid I simply don’t know what you mean by it.
Being guilty of exalting humanity too highly works just fine as a heresy for me.
Seth, I didn’t write those things. I quoted from the writer in First Things journal. It’s a long article, so you may want to read and skim it for the arguments he makes. You seem to agree with him, that Mormons are not Christians. Or are you saying that Mormons are not Protestants or Catholics, but still Christians?
The grafted onto the olive tree metaphor is from Romans. Paul was saying that Jews are a natural olive tree, raised up by the Lord over centuries, but because of their rejection of Jesus as the Christ, they were cut off and Gentiles through Christ were grafted in. The writer Gerald R. McDermott is talking about whether Mormonism is a legitimate variety or denomination of Christianity or another religion altogether. If it’s a variety of Christianity, then it’s part of the branch that’s grafted in. His conclusion is that it is not part of Christianity b/c its doctrines of God, Christ, the Spirit, mankind, and salvation are so different from those reasonably taken from the Bible–leaving alone the argument about new revelation from Galatians.
Phil: If the Bible recorded many chapters of history that could be disproven from reliable sources and research, then it would damage the Bible’s spiritual credibility too.
Ori: I see. This is similar to me saying earlier that reason can’t identify an alleged revelation as true, but that it could identify it as false. I agree with this.
Phil: leaving alone the argument about new revelation from Galatians.
Ori: I can’t find the reference right now, but I seem to remember the Pentateuch also has something about new revelation.
I’ve read the Porter-McDermott article in full. I’m also in process of reading the book “Claiming Christ” which McDermott co-authors with Robert Millet (LDS Professor of religious studies at BYU).
I’ve commented on this article elsewhere, but I can cut-and-paste a bit of it here (sorry about the length):
I get the sense that while McDermott makes a valiant effort to take the Book of Mormon seriously, he just can’t get past that initial prejudice he has the whole thing is a crock. Bro. Porter was spot on when he pointed out:
Of course, right after Porter says this, McDermott proceeds to – surprise, surprise – go off on a detailed discussion of why the Book of Mormon is a hoax. It’s like he didn’t even listen to Porter (he certainly never addresses Porter’s comment).
Often when I talk to Evangelicals, it quickly becomes obvious that they don’t want to talk about the DOCTRINES in the Book of Mormon. Even with those who have read the entire book, it becomes apparent they only read it with one hand, while holding a counter-cult commentary in the other. If they paid attention to the book at all, it was only to try and pick out inconsistencies that prove the book a fraud (or to prove that it contradicts later stuff Joseph said – as McDermott does in pitting the BoM against Joseph’s King Follett sermon). They simply cannot allow themselves to take the book seriously or read it and judge it internally on its own terms.
So it’s hardly surprising that McDermott goofed here and forgot about Jacob 5. Try as he might, he simply cannot allow himself to take the book seriously. If he did take it seriously, he would look for how some Book of Mormon passages are informed by other passages in the text. Most Evangelicals are unwilling to do this – proceeding from the assumption that the book is a hoax anyway, so taking it seriously would be a waste of time.
A good example of this is the typical Evangelical treatment of Book of Mormon passage 2 Nephi 25:23:
This is typically cited by Evangelical critics (the majority of our most vocal critics happen to be Evangelical) of Mormonism’s false emphasis on works at the expense of Christ’s grace.
Leaving aside the fact that a more grammatically correct read of the passage would be “for we know that after all we can do, it is by grace we are saved,” Evangelical use of this passage illustrates how they refuse to take the book seriously and only prooftext from it for flaws and problems.
If they were taking the book seriously, they would also cross-reference 2 Nephi 25:23 with the following passages from the Book of Mormon:
Alma 24:11 (which equates the phrase “all we could do” with repentance alone – no other good works mentioned)
Mosiah 3:17 (making it explicit that salvation ONLY comes through Christ)
2 Nephi 2:3-9 (one of the key Book of Mormon passages on the Atonement, presenting an explanation of it that I doubt most Evangelicals would have a problem with)
and 2 Nephi 10:24 (again, only through grace are you saved)
To say nothing of Mosiah 2:20-24 (part of one of the most important speeches recorded in the Book of Mormon and taking a very, very harsh view of justification by works – making it clear that works are ultimately inadequate in the eternal calculation of things)
I only go through these passages to show that too often Mormonism’s critics are simply unwilling to engage the actual doctrines and beliefs of Mormonism, but find it more entertaining to force Mormons to defend “Joseph the treasure-hunter,” or “horses in the New World,” or respond to half-baked conspiracy theories of the document’s origin… Anything but engage the actual text itself.
But consider, if the Book of Mormon really is what it claims to be, you would have to take it just as seriously as you take the Bible, and your study of it would have to be just as rigorous, if you wanted a true understanding of it.
By the way, John Moorehead (a Christian blogger in Utah) did a nice interview with a Mormon issues blogger ”Aquinas” reviewing the book ”Claiming Christ” and why it falls short of the benchmark set by Robinson and Bloomberg’s ”How Wide the Divide.” Check it out here:
http://johnwmorehead.blogspot.com/2008/08/lds-perspective-on-claiming-christ.html
Sorry, the cut-and-paste job left out what my “Jacob chapter 5” reference was about.
Jacob chapter 5 comprises a detailed allegory of an olive grove and how the house of Israel is an olive tree that the Lord of the vineyard tries to bless the rest of the vineyard with. It talks about grafting, and re-grafting branches of Israel in an attempt to strengthen other trees and so forth. Phil, you should probably have a look at this chapter since it seems pertinent to your original post.
Jacob 5 essentially provides the entire Mormon view of world history, and where we fit in it. It stands for the assertion that God now has in his care, not just an isolated ethnic group in Palestine, but the entire world. Not only that, but he has had the entire world in mind from the beginning, and not just after Christ’s ascension.
McDermott, ironically claims that a difference between the “Mormon Jesus” and the “Christian Jesus” is that Mormonism’s Jesus is obsessed with America, while Christianity’s Jesus is concerned with the whole world.
That’s what I meant when I said that McDermott totally “goofed” this one. He’s completely misread the Book of Mormon’s central message and intent – to provide another witness of Jesus Christ – proving that Christ is for all – Jew and Gentile.
By the by, I have to commend the people on this blog for being measured and polite. I don’t always get that everywhere. Thanks for that.
You’re welcome, Seth.
Ori, I hope you find those verse from the Pentateuch. I can’t think of anything like that myself, but even if it is there, what about all of the Scripture following what Moses gave us? Are the Psalms, histories, and prophecies not considered revelation. Now that I”m typing, I think I recall something about penalties for adding or removing from the law. It would be in the final chapters of Deuteronomy, wouldn’t it?
Seth, you make an admirable defense. Are you saying Mormon doctrine can stand without the integrity of the Book of Mormon? And is the BoM a revelation from God that supersedes the Bible?
I can’t think of anything like that myself, but even if it is there, what about all of the Scripture following what Moses gave us? Are the Psalms, histories, and prophecies not considered revelation.
They are not laws, so they shouldn’t affect people’s behavior. The Psalms are mostly poems written by King David, with some older material he collected(1). The Histories are precisely that – books of history, written by prophets but still books of history.
The prophesies are revelations about the future which were considered valuable enough to write up for future use (there were a lot more prophets whose words were not written down). But they don’t reveal any new laws, they are merely God’s attempts to get the people to obey laws already given.
Neither of these contradicts the Torah, or tell people that the laws in it are no longer valid.
(1) This is the Orthodox Jewish view.
“Are you saying Mormon doctrine can stand without the integrity of the Book of Mormon?”
I think it can. Of course, I personally believe in the integrity of Joseph’s account of how the book came to be. But I think the doctrines therein can speak for themselves and do quite well indeed.
“And is the BoM a revelation from God that supersedes the Bible?”
I would say “supplements” and not “supersedes.”
I don’t find anything in particular in the Book of Mormon that is not in harmony with the Bible. The Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price both introduce theological concepts that are new and not contained in the Bible. But the Book of Mormon itself really doesn’t stray too far off the beaten path.
Of course, you will find a popular belief among lay Mormons that the Book of Mormon is in some sense, superior to the Bible. But I don’t think the sentiment is much more than that – popular belief. The Book of Mormon is considered to have passed through fewer human hands than the Bible – meaning it is supposedly in a more pristine state. But I don’t automatically take that as a call for words like “superior” or “supersedes.”
Some Mormons might be Christians, but Mormonism is not Christian.
It is antithetical to Christ. It is all about ‘you’ and climbing the ladder to God and becoming perfect (gradually…what a joke)
No way. God came to us in Christ and dies for our sins and declares us righteous for Jesus’ sake.
That’s the gospel. (Just in case there are any Mormons out there…I wanted you to hear it(the gospel) at least once in your life)
Wow.
Hi, I came over from Loren Eaton’s blog – we mostly do literary stuff, via my blog InSearchofGiants.com, but I’m actually a Christian theologian by profession and – wow.
I love fun theological conversations and am definitely adding you to my Google Reader!
Evangelicals are an evil cult. If you need help in getting out of the Evangelical cult please go to mormon.org. We can help you. We understand your suffering.
Somehow this comment by Joe makes me laugh. The difference, if I need to write it, between Christianity and Christian-themed cults is what they teach about Jesus Christ. Jesus is fully God and fully man and of one essence with the Father and Spirit. To teach that he was just one of three gods, that he was a biological son of God along with others, those are not bad interpretations of the Bible. They are completely new ideas pushed on the Bible, making those teaching cultish.
At least, I think that’s how it goes.
To teach that he was just one of three gods, that he was a biological son of God along with others, those are not bad interpretations of the Bible. They are completely new ideas pushed on the Bible, making those teaching cultish.
1) I do not think that Mormons believe that “he was a biological son of God along with others.”
2) What’s the distinction between “bad interpretations of the Bible” and “completely new ideas pushed on the Bible”?
Has anyone read the articles on Mormonism in the excellent book, “Kingdom of the Cults”? Or The book, “So What’s the Difference?”, re: Mormonism?
These are just two pieces of literature that document who Joe Smith was and how he lived. I am amazed I still have Mormon friends after I give them these books to read… but I do… they admit to being forced now to look beyond what they were raised on.
PS. What is a Google reader?
I know of Kingdom of the Cults, but I haven’t read it.
Why are you asking about Google Reader? Feel free to go here to learn more.
I’m starting to get a little paranoid???
I started onto Lars’ sight because my family and I are trying to dig out history on my Norwegian side of the family. Lars has info on the Minn. side of my dad’s family. I’d hope he could furnish me with more… he has … I still hope there is more..hahahaha…. but as to Why am I asking questions about Google Reader, URL, etc… I just have no idea what these things are. I’ve been on the net for years but I’m not at all net oriented like most people seem to be. in the process I’ve stumbled upon some interesting discussions going or have gone on.
My wife read many Japanese bloggs for info she is interested in….I thought I’d try it for the same reason. The discussions here are very well done and I enjoy what I have read so far.
In the mean time, I don’t expect a complete life lesson on how to operate a computer… but …Lars mentioned I could ask YOU Phil about technical stuff here… so I have… If you don’t wish to, fine… if you do fine…
My main purpose here is pick Lars’ brain on my family tree… and now second, to read interesting bloggs.